60 vs 62 Which do you prefer and why?
- Thread starter TDanley
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Look at and drive both to see how each model strikes you. I owned a 62 for 20 years. The auto transmission is a big minus, and so are the problematic power windows. Also the fuel pump is in the tank, attached to a bracket running out of the tank that’s prone to rust and is no longer available.
If I was to buy another 60 series (not likely) it’d be a 60 for simplicity sake and the manual transmission. It also looks better with the round headlights. Drawbacks include a carbureted engine with an exhaust manifold prone to leaking.
If I was to buy another 60 series (not likely) it’d be a 60 for simplicity sake and the manual transmission. It also looks better with the round headlights. Drawbacks include a carbureted engine with an exhaust manifold prone to leaking.
Not a manual, at least not in US spec, but have you considered the last model before they went all cushy? I have had a diesel 100, 2 petrol 200s, and a 300 (UK, ME and ME respectively), and for outdoor adventures I'll take my '97 80 any day. I really like the looks of the 60 series so I get the appeal but I've never owned one so I can't really speak to their drivability. I do have an FJ55 though so if you really want the rugged LC persona then look no further. So my advice is to go one step backwards or forwards.
You aren’t trying hard enough
TreadingLight
"Overlanding is Sh*t"
How is an 80 not cushy? It's got good bones but they are wrapped in fragile convenience features.
Straight front axle. 4.5l tractor engine. Yes, perhaps cushy by 1997 standards but the 100 series and up have a smoother ride with the IFS. Not sure what you consider fragile but all my convenience features still work at just under 300k miles.
I love mine with the grill of the 60's, some features of the 62's like power windows, power lock,s rear AC, 3F engine with the 55HF.
TreadingLight
"Overlanding is Sh*t"
Power antennas, seats, mirrors, CDL actuator, windows and locks are all convenience features I've fixed on peoples' 80s.
It's a miracle they've lasted this long but there are a thousand different things I'd rather do to my own land cruiser than pull the seat to replace that damn plastic gear.
And imagine if it failed on the trail!?
I take remote back country trips so I have a very low tolerance for that sort of thing.
Back on topic, to the OP I really think it depends on how you use your truck. No matter what you choose you'll probably want modifications to suit your needs.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I have no beef with my A440F auto transmission. It's slow, yes, but part of that is my bad because I put 32" tires on my 62. I'm sure the original 29" (or whatever they were) tires made the truck quite drivable, especially for the era. But I love not having to shift and clutch all the time, especially in traffic.
I also have a non-synchromesh 3-speed floor shift in my '72 FJ40 if I really want to get my manual fix. It's a great reminder of how awesome the auto is, haha.
At the end of the day, the dead reliable EFI in the 62 is what seals the deal for me. I hate dealing with carbs.
I also have a non-synchromesh 3-speed floor shift in my '72 FJ40 if I really want to get my manual fix. It's a great reminder of how awesome the auto is, haha.
At the end of the day, the dead reliable EFI in the 62 is what seals the deal for me. I hate dealing with carbs.
Good point. Me too! But there are some potential issues with the EFI. The 62 also has power antenna, windows and door locks as a person above was complaining about on the 80 series. OP needs to test drive them both. Yes, the auto has its advantages.
Is that true? Is the EFI in the 62 more reliable than a carb? I've always told myself that I like a carb better than EFI because I can take a carb apart and fix it, usually. I don't know that I could fix an EFI if it decides not to run. A carb's needs are very simple and the 2F is very forgiving, "too stupid to die" can be very helpful when you're just trying to get off the trail.
I guess I should say that it's been true *in my experience*, and it's something I've found to be the case in both my Land Cruisers/Toyotas and air cooled VWs, where I've run both carbs and Bosch fuel injection of various generations. FI has been less finicky for me across the board. In my 62, the EFI has let me down twice: once, when a lead to the coil came loose (was able to use a fault code to isolate and fix on the side of the road) and once when an aftermarket fuel pump failed with only 5000km on it (swapped the original back in, it's still running).
Each system has its advantages, but for daily driver purposes, I find the EFI to be less affected by elevation, weather, mood, vibes, etc. than a carb
.
Each system has its advantages, but for daily driver purposes, I find the EFI to be less affected by elevation, weather, mood, vibes, etc. than a carb
.
TreadingLight
"Overlanding is Sh*t"
For reliability I'd rather have the factory EFI than a sniper, but when it comes to repairability you need a good parts supply chain for any EFI issues.
One can learn to maintain a carb with basic tools and supplies.
If being self a sufficient is a priority I'd lean carb. But that's splitting hairs IMO. Probably not the deciding factor for most.
One can learn to maintain a carb with basic tools and supplies.
If being self a sufficient is a priority I'd lean carb. But that's splitting hairs IMO. Probably not the deciding factor for most.
PVCsnorkel
President of the Keystone Cruisers
I have a Sniper on mine and every time I hear a good tuned carb running next to mine I want to go back to a carb. The Sniper got me running again after a de-smog but I would not use it again. I feel like it is a time bomb waiting to fail on the trail and it always has a slight sputter. I got spooked from a bad carb and I'm kicking myself for not just learning to do it right, because carbs really aren't that hard.
I have seen 62s do great on trails but the power comfort features breaking (windows getting stuck up or down, locks not working, etc..) and the auto trans would steer me away. I could not imagine having to deal with an auto trans behind an F series engine. They really need a manual to properly go through the rpms and hold a gear climbing hills. 1st gear is low enough that if you give a little space in traffic you can just crawl along, minimal clutch pumping needed.
For daily driver purposes, sure. Heck, you can DD a Prado. The OP is asking about a weekend rig. A real Landcruiser can get you far enough off-road to where you could be in trouble if it failed. The un-written rule for the Landcruiser was "It always gets you home". That started early, maybe not so much with the later models. Those new-fangled electronic gizmos like EFI may be a double-edged sword where they do everything great until they don't and then nothing works.
You don't need a code-reader with a carb, there's the porthole window in the float bowl. Does it have gas? Look and see. Too much? not enough? Easy to tell and there's fixes for both.
The 3FE's EFI system is generally very robust and reliable. The EFI system in my '89 62 is now 37 years old, and the only thing of note I've had to do was install some new oxygen sensors. Everything else is original (well, at least not changed in the 15 years I've owned the truck). Runs great, idles smooth and steady. Exhaust doesn't stink.
I'll take EFI any day over a carb, even in the middle of nowhere. Realistically the 62 EFI system only needs two sensors to run, the distributor pickup (which most carb'd 2Fs have anyways), and the AFM. The AFM being a largely mechanical, and generally very reliable component.
The biggest thing, (I think), with the 62 and the Automatic is that
1) the transmissions are aggressive at up-shifting. My 62 will be in overdrive by 29-30 MPH at low throttle, which I think is a bit aggressive. However this is easily rectified by just knocking the shifter down into "3" or "2". I find the performance to be perfectly acceptable if I manually downshift it.
2) Very few people re-gear when changing tires, and it's really necessary with these rigs. They came with very small tires stock. I went to 255/85-R16 tires, which is 33" and re-geared to 4.88:1s, which some would call "extreme". Except at 60 MPH, my speedometer is dead-on, which means it compensated for the extra tire perfectly. If you go to 33s without re-gearing, the already aggressive up-shifting is worse - you'll be in OD by 24 MPH. Not only that, but your torque converter won't lock until 63-64 MPH, so anything below that is just cooking the transmission.
My 62 with 4.88s isn't fast, and still slows down on very steep grades, but around town and getting up to speed on the highway is quite fine. Feels good off-road too, plenty responsive. If the transmission isn't in a gear I want it to be in, I just click the shifter down one or two spots and get the revs up, really no different from a manual at that point.
PVCsnorkel
President of the Keystone Cruisers
That sounds like a lot of extra work and liability on the transmission just to replicate the manual....
I have never liked automatics, they never have good shift points and I've had several burn up on me in stock vehicles. Never had any issues with my manuals though.
I mean, even with a manual you should re-gear to maintain performance and crawl-ability off-road.
As far as manually shifting an automatic goes, manually moving the shift lever from "D" into "3" "2" or "L" doesn't affect the transmission any. It just actuates the same shift-valves the governor normally would. All of the clutches inside the transmission don't know any different.
As I recall, the differences between the two marks still remains somewhat irrelevant in the corners of my mind. However, after driving both the only comment I uttered to my cat was…” Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore”!
Hence, my daily driver for the past 38 years.
Hence, my daily driver for the past 38 years.